From: Int-area on behalf of Warren Kumari
Sent: 22 January 2024 14:39
Hi there all,
I discovered that I'd somehow misnamed a draft that Juliusz Chroboczek , Toke
Høiland-Jørgensen, and myself had written — somehow I'd managed to name it
draft-chroboczek-int-v4-via-v6, instead of draft-chrobo
Thanks for writing this down!
Wonder what it would take for a host to do router discovery using a different
AF.
Achieving the equivalent of "ip route add 0.0.0.0/0 via inet6 fe80::1 dev eth0”
O.
> On 22 Jan 2024, at 15:39, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> Hi there all,
>
> I discovered that I'd som
The draft seems entirely too focused on the guts of the per-packet
routing decision. This misses the system-wide implications of the
proposal.
The draft treats IPv4 and IPv6 as symmetric and equal, such that you
could route packets for either or both, over a network that support just
one.
So I s
Warren Kumari wrote:
> This isn't yet another "let's rewrite part of the header and override
> some bits", nor some new protocol / tunneling thing. It simply notes
> that routers only need to determine the outgoing interface (and
> usually MAC address) for a packet, and so it's perfectly acceptabl
On 22 Jan 2024, at 15:40, Warren Kumari wrote:
> So, if this already works, why are we writing a document?!
I wandered into that document expecting to find an heretical inference that
control messages were not important for some reason which would have made me a
bit animated, but as it turns o
All
I have a draft in BESS that uses RFC 8950 and applies it to all BGP
AFI/SAFI use case of a single IPv6 peer that can advertise any IPv4 NLRI
and as well the converse use case of a single IPv4 peer that can advertise
any IPv6 NLRI.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-v4-v6-pe-al
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:23 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Warren,
> Just to confirm, this is:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chroboczek-int-v4-via-v6/
>
> currently at -02. Correct?
>
Nope - this is
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chroboczek-intarea-v4-via-v6/
(note "intarea" vs
Warren,
Just to confirm, this is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chroboczek-int-v4-via-v6/
currently at -02. Correct?
I think this is a good idea and support it. I will try to review it and
provide more comments. The ICMP behavior is an interesting problem.
Bob
> On Jan 22, 20
